Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (4) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8 to 2011-12 i.e., after the issue of the Circular mentioned hereinabove. Thus, the submission of the appellant that they were not aware of the liability to Service Tax as a sub-contractor, is not agreed upon. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/s. Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd. [ 2019 (6) TMI 518 - CESTAT NEW DELHI-LB] has decided that even when the main contractor has discharged Service Tax, the sub-contractor is required to pay Service. In view of the decision of the Larger Bench and by relying on the Board Circular, it is held that the sub-contractor is liable to pay Service Tax even if the main contractor pays Service Tax on the gross value of the services. Extended period of limitation - supp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... returns regularly. The appellant has been awarded a contract as sub-contractor by M/s. Naresh Kumar Co. Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as NKCPL ] vide letter dated 10.03.2007 for unloading of raw materials from rake at TATA Metaliks Ltd. Rly Sidings. 2.1 The appellant raised invoices to the main contractor viz. NKCPL without charging Service Tax and the appellant intimated the same to the Department vide their letter dated 21.11.2011. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 08.10.2012 came to be issued to the appellant inter alia demanding Service Tax of Rs.50,49,848/-. 4. The said Notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order wherein the demand of Service Tax was confirmed along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved against the impugned ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... if the main contractor discharges tax on the gross value. Accordingly, he supported the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 8. We observe that the appellant has rendered clearing and forwarding service to the main contractor viz. NKCPL without charging Service Tax and not paid Service Tax on the services rendered by them to the main contractor/NKCPL. The appellant contends that they were under the bona fide belief that they need not pay Service Tax on the value of services provided to NKCPL since the main contractor had paid Service Tax on the entire value. 8.1. We find that the issue has been clarified vide Circular No. 96/7/2007-S.T. dated 23.08.2007 wherein it has been categorically stated as under: - A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sub-contractor is required to pay Service Tax. We also find that in the case of M/s. Akash Engineering v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-I [Service Tax Appeal No. 1186 of 2012 - CESTAT, Hyderabad] on the issue whether the sub-contractor is liable to pay Service Tax when the main contractor paid Service Tax on the whole contract value, it has been decided as under: - 5.7 The Tribunal in very recent decisions as pointed by the Department has followed the decision in the case of Melange Developers Ltd., to hold that the sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax even if the main contractor has discharged service tax on the contract value. Judicial propriety makes it binding to follow the Larger Bench decision in order to reduc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... charging Service Tax and the same was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 21.11.2011. Thus, we observe that the appellant has no mala fide intention to evade payment of Service Tax. We also observe that the Department has not adduced any evidence to the effect that the appellant has suppressed any information from the Department. 9.1. We observe that the appellant has been filing their returns regularly, thereby intimating the liability to Service Tax. Thus, we observe that no suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of tax exists in this case. 9.2. Accordingly, we hold that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against the appellant. For the same reason, the penalties imposed on the appellant are set asi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates